Do you guys ever feel dumbfounded by right wing arguments?

[RadioRaheem84]

Sometimes I am in total shock and some of the simplistic and utterly idiotic arguments by right wingers.

I can't even answer them sometimes because I think that their questions have no real legitimate answers.

For instance: Why should I have to pay for someone else's health care or education?

This question, for one, is so loaded with presumptions and at the same time so devoid on meaning that how is someone supposed to answer that?

You just think what kind of society do they advocate?

[synthesis]

You just need to answer their question with another question. It might take a little longer, but it's more productive.

[iwwforever]

It is very frustrating to try and reason with right wingers.

They do not care about the needs of others because they are selfish.

It really frustrates them to talk to you...

... because they know that you know the society they advocate causes suffering and is evil.

[ContrarianLemming]

"obama is a nazi communist hippie"

pick one!

or, someone said to me yesterday that Chomsky is anti american because he owns a house in India (he doesnt).

[Jimmie Higgins]

Sometimes I am in total shock and some of the simplistic and utterly idiotic arguments by right wingers.

I can't even answer them sometimes because I think that their questions have no real legitimate answers.

For instance: Why should I have to pay for someone else's health care or education?

This question, for one, is so loaded with presumptions and at the same time so devoid on meaning that how is someone supposed to answer that?

You just think what kind of society do they advocate?A lot of times the logic is just circular: "Obama is a socialist because he enacts socialist policies to fix the economy which would have worked fine in the first place if it wasn't for Obama's socialist policies"

I think you are correct, with some there is no legitimate answer: how does someone who is against "wasteful governmnet spending" and the government looking over our shoulder as a "nanny state" at the exact same time argue for more war, police, a million-dollar a mile border wall, and NAZI-like document-inspections for Latinos?

[NoOneIsIllegal]

or, someone said to me yesterday that Chomsky is anti american because he owns a house in India (he doesnt).
TBH, it is somewhat true. He is anti-American (Foreign Policy)
:rolleyes:

[Kuppo Shakur]

Whenever someone throws a nonsensical argument at me, I usually just concede that I am in fact a satan-worshiping, poor innocent defenseless unborn baby aborting, commie who loves Kim Jong Il and wants to tax the hell out of all the honest hardworking managers and take their guns away.
Usually shuts em up.

[Axle]

I usually just give them a long, hard "How fucking stupid are you?" look until they quit asking those questions.

But you're right, when I was few years younger I would actually try to argue against those questions, and it really is basically impossible to do.

[fa2991]

I've always wondered if they are actually satisfied with their own arguments.

"I wonder what we should do to make this a better world... Obama's a Nazi! Okay, that's settled."

[GPDP]

A lot of times the logic is just circular: "Obama is a socialist because he enacts socialist policies to fix the economy which would have worked fine in the first place if it wasn't for Obama's socialist policies"

I think you are correct, with some there is no legitimate answer: how does someone who is against "wasteful governmnet spending" and the government looking over our shoulder as a "nanny state" at the exact same time argue for more war, police, a million-dollar a mile border wall, and NAZI-like document-inspections for Latinos?

It's called coded language. They do want smaller government... for white, middle class Christians with guns like themselves. Whenever they say something like "we need to take back America," ask yourself exactly who the "we" in question is, and who it is they are implying to be taking American back from. You'll find they are implicitly referring to WASPs and poor minorities respectively, and guess what? Everyone in the target audience will know exactly what they are actually talking about, without it being spelled straight out.

In any case, I actually find myself more frustrated by centrist liberals who fancy themselves progressives, but god help you if you dare criticize their Dalai Obama. It's not his fault! Progressive politics are great but aren't politically feasible! We gotta make do with what we got, etc.

[MarxSchmarx]

I'll admit I've come across a few good right wing arguments in my day, mostly rehashing classical liberalism but still it makes you pause.

I think one argument I continue to hear is that as long as competent adults agree to be exploited, who are we to tell them otherwise? For better or worse many right-wingers feel that people actually do have an alternative - that they can, for instance, live off the land or go fishing all day. When you try to argue otherwise, they say things like "well that guy Les Stroud does it if you wanted to eat berries and dead beetles you can survive" and the sort.

It's something of an uphill battle to describe that the working class doesn't have that choice but rich people do etc... At the end of the day the only way to counter the argument I've found is to explain that it's not really a free choice - it's something that we've been brainwashed to believe - but that also has its problems. It's unsatisfactory, I know, but credit is sometimes due where credit is due.

[anticap]

For better or worse many right-wingers feel that people actually do have an alternative - that they can, for instance, live off the land or go fishing all day.

The argument that anti-capitalists are free to go live in caves or become subsistence farmers is asinine because it implies that capitalists are the creators and rightful owners of civilization.

In fact, the working class built civilization, and if anyone ought to be expected to abandon it for the wilderness it is those who contributed nothing to it.

Of course, the pro-capitalist will argue the exact opposite, that capitalists (usually reified as "capitalism") created all the wondrous things that we see around us. These idolaters are to be pitied, not hated. It's not their fault: people tend to grow up believing what they are taught as children.

[Barry Lyndon]

The argument that anti-capitalists are free to go live in caves or become subsistence farmers is asinine because it implies that capitalists are the creators and rightful owners of civilization.

In fact, the working class built civilization, and if anyone ought to be expected to abandon it for the wilderness it is those who contributed nothing to it.

Of course, the pro-capitalist will argue the exact opposite, that capitalists (usually reified as "capitalism") created all the wondrous things that we see around us. These idolaters are to be pitied, not hated. It's not their fault: people tend to grow up believing what they are taught as children.

True, but even children stop believing in Santa Claus at some point.

The way you can see some measure of success in arguing with the right-wingers or even centrist liberals is when you have cornered them about the objective harm capitalism causes to the world, and they doggedly continue to defend the system on increasingly transparent selfish grounds. Then the mask of innocence begins to slip off and you see a self-absorbed, vicous, cruel, racist, sexist troll. It's not a pretty sight, but it's pretty illuminating.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's called coded language. They do want smaller government... for white, middle class Christians with guns like themselves. Whenever they say something like "we need to take back America," ask yourself exactly who the "we" in question is, and who it is they are implying to be taking American back from. You'll find they are implicitly referring to WASPs and poor minorities respectively, and guess what? Everyone in the target audience will know exactly what they are actually talking about, without it being spelled straight out.I wanted to thank this but I didn't realize this topic is in chit-chat.

I agree and it was asking a rhetorical question - because of everything you said, it really is pointless to try and reason with them because the logic is self-fufilling and their political issues are really smokscreens: it doesn't matter how far from ground zero you move the Mosque because the location isn't the problem to them, Muslims are.


In any case, I actually find myself more frustrated by centrist liberals who fancy themselves progressives, but god help you if you dare criticize their Dalai Obama. It's not his fault! Progressive politics are great but aren't politically feasible! We gotta make do with what we got, etc.These people still exist? Seriosuly, I am finding this sentiment, which a short time ago was pretty monolithic among liberals, to be a leaking and fractured dam. I think the Oil rig did it.

But yeah, this sentiment is frustrating and just as based on disillusion as the people who think Obama wasn't a US citizen. It can be hard to reason with them too, but I think it's more possible because at least most of them think poverty and racism and war are actually bad things unlike the disillusion right who think that this things are the fault of the poor, doesn't exist, and it necessary and don't go far enough respectively. When someone doesn't think racism is an issue in the US, it is hard to convince them - if someone thinks racism is a problem but thinks Obama will do something about it, at least we can try and show how and why he can't and won't.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The argument I'm dumbfounded most by is put forth by people who say that life is just a brutal, meaningless existence, and that people only believe in religious & political ideologies in order to give meaning to what is really a swirling chaotic shitstorm that has none.

[Martin Blank]

The argument I'm dumbfounded most by is put forth by people who say that life is just a brutal, meaningless existence, and that people only believe in religious & political ideologies in order to give meaning to what is really a swirling chaotic shitstorm that has none.

You mean the folks who just shrug their shoulders and go "it is what it is"? I'm asking because that's what I think of when you say that.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Pretty much.

[Trigonometry]

why argue? I avoid all such arguments, they are meaningless and waste of time.
It further despairs me and makes me think that perhaps society will forever be cynical and capitalist despite its flaws and that the collapse of "communism" has given an easy way out for modern education to brain wash people and associate "communism" with lack of freedom and the only class consciousness people have developed the last 100 years is that progressive taxing is bad because less pocket money, it seems as if that change under the label of socialism is forever doomed, perhaps the 'inevitable' will never come

[NecroCommie]

Friend: "extreme left wingers are equally bad with extreme right wingers"
...
Necro: "Extreme idiots are equally bad with extreme lunatics"

[Jimmie Higgins]

why argue? I avoid all such arguments, they are meaningless and waste of time.
It further despairs me and makes me think that perhaps society will forever be cynical and capitalist despite its flaws and that the collapse of "communism" has given an easy way out for modern education to brain wash people and associate "communism" with lack of freedom and the only class consciousness people have developed the last 100 years is that progressive taxing is bad because less pocket money, it seems as if that change under the label of socialism is forever doomed, perhaps the 'inevitable' will never comeI agree it is a waste of time... but because there are actually so many people grappling with very real problems of the system that we could be speaking to and possibly organizing. All the time in the news there are stories about 1,000s of people showing up for a handful of spots for a job at Wal-Mart or for a few low-income housing slots. They are largely voiceless and marginalized along with the teachers being bashed by "Waiting for Superman" or public sector workers facing cuts and so on, so this class-anger is off the radar while the pro-business anger of the tea-party gets coverage because it's useful to those in power. Not all of these working class people I'm talking about are going to be immediately open to radical ideas - most likely most will be demoralized until they see some examples of people taking their own action in wildcats or militant protests - but some will and they will at least be on the same page as us from their own experiences of the system alone.

[L.A.P.]

There just very confused people, i spend most of my time just lecturing them rather than debate with them.

[Incendiarism]

The cure for right wing insanity is to keep your mouth shut and your thoughts hidden.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I'll admit I've come across a few good right wing arguments in my day, mostly rehashing classical liberalism but still it makes you pause.

I think one argument I continue to hear is that as long as competent adults agree to be exploited, who are we to tell them otherwise? For better or worse many right-wingers feel that people actually do have an alternative - that they can, for instance, live off the land or go fishing all day. When you try to argue otherwise, they say things like "well that guy Les Stroud does it if you wanted to eat berries and dead beetles you can survive" and the sort.

It's something of an uphill battle to describe that the working class doesn't have that choice but rich people do etc... At the end of the day the only way to counter the argument I've found is to explain that it's not really a free choice - it's something that we've been brainwashed to believe - but that also has its problems. It's unsatisfactory, I know, but credit is sometimes due where credit is due.

Eh? Since when did having an alternative say anything about the morality of a particular set of actions. I don't suppose anyone would defend murder because "the victim could of been a go getter like me an learned ku fu"

[MarxSchmarx]

The argument that anti-capitalists are free to go live in caves or become subsistence farmers is asinine because it implies that capitalists are the creators and rightful owners of civilization.

In fact, the working class built civilization, and if anyone ought to be expected to abandon it for the wilderness it is those who contributed nothing to it.

Of course, the pro-capitalist will argue the exact opposite, that capitalists (usually reified as "capitalism") created all the wondrous things that we see around us. These idolaters are to be pitied, not hated. It's not their fault: people tend to grow up believing what they are taught as children

Ah, but the cappie argument is that the capitalist built up their wealth first with their hard work and then by taking risks, for which they needed to be rewarded. And without them fronting the capital, the great wealths created by workers would not be possible.


why argue? I avoid all such arguments, they are meaningless and waste of time.
It further despairs me and makes me think that perhaps society will forever be cynical and capitalist despite its flaws and that the collapse of "communism" has given an easy way out for modern education to brain wash people and associate "communism" with lack of freedom and the only class consciousness people have developed the last 100 years is that progressive taxing is bad because less pocket money, it seems as if that change under the label of socialism is forever doomed, perhaps the 'inevitable' will never come If this is true, why does the capitalist side invests massive resources in the ideological justification of their views in the ivory tower? There has been a concerted academic attack on leftism from the capitalist class. I don't see why the left won't use those strategies.

At the very least, talking points are needed, and good arguments are a necessary though hardly sufficient component of good arguments.


The argument I'm dumbfounded most by is put forth by people who say that life is just a brutal, meaningless existence, and that people only believe in religious & political ideologies in order to give meaning to what is really a swirling chaotic shitstorm that has none. If those political ideologies are leftist I don't see a problem with this "argument".



http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1891689#post1891689) I'll admit I've come across a few good right wing arguments in my day, mostly rehashing classical liberalism but still it makes you pause.

I think one argument I continue to hear is that as long as competent adults agree to be exploited, who are we to tell them otherwise? For better or worse many right-wingers feel that people actually do have an alternative - that they can, for instance, live off the land or go fishing all day. When you try to argue otherwise, they say things like "well that guy Les Stroud does it if you wanted to eat berries and dead beetles you can survive" and the sort.

It's something of an uphill battle to describe that the working class doesn't have that choice but rich people do etc... At the end of the day the only way to counter the argument I've found is to explain that it's not really a free choice - it's something that we've been brainwashed to believe - but that also has its problems. It's unsatisfactory, I know, but credit is sometimes due where credit is due. Eh? Since when did having an alternative say anything about the morality of a particular set of actions. I don't suppose anyone would defend murder because "the victim could of been a go getter like me an learned ku fu"

Well that's where that consent thing comes in - after all you sign a contract to work for someone. Most murder victims don't sign those kinds of contracts.

[Salyut]

Native Americans had to die because they didn't have technology.


Africa should be left to rot and then we can recolonize it.

The asking a question thing didn't work in these cases.

[#FF0000]

I remember I asked a couple of libertarian how crushing poverty jived with any notion of liberty and he just sort of looked at me.

The other one pretty matter-of-factly said that capitalism is more important than rights or liberty, which I think what most libertarians would say, because they are so far removed from the classical liberals that they think they base their worldview on. It's weird.

[Salyut]

I remember I asked a couple of libertarian how crushing poverty jived with any notion of liberty and he just sort of looked at me.

The other one pretty matter-of-factly said that capitalism is more important than rights or liberty, which I think what most libertarians would say, because they are so far removed from the classical liberals that they think they base their worldview on. It's weird.

Ever run into Miseans?

[#FF0000]

Ever run into Miseans?

I don't often wander into stranger's basements so.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Well that's where that consent thing comes in - after all you sign a contract to work for someone. Most murder victims don't sign those kinds of contracts.

Indeed, but then isn't it fairly obivous to point out that while you consent to do things, but only within the context of the capitalist system, which is forced apon you?


So they are going to have to argue that either; capitalism is not forced onto people (or rather that people have an innate "right" to capitalism, so enforcing it onto people is no different than "forcing" a rapist not to rape, or any other act commonly called self defense), in which case it is fairly easy to point out how capitalist property rights are not a good right to grant people. Or they will have too admit that "consent" to work for an employer doesn't justify anything.

Note here, its possible that they fetishise capitalist property relations to such a degree that they can't see how they are forced onto people (they'l probs just say you can move away if you want), so ask them what would happen if you stole something, capitalism would force its concept of "just property" onto you within a few minutes.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I dont see any why i should debate with a hardcore right-winger or a hardcore liberal, since i will not be able to convince him/her, so i tend to do like Comrade_kuppo menthioned, just be ironic and say that you support all kind of bad things that are associated with socialism. However if there are some kind of audience watching you i will just try to, rethoricly, break down the right-w/liberal and rather try too appeal to the audience.